Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chess Titans


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. I additionally recommend to continue discussing the possibility of a merge on the article's talk page. :) · Salvidrim!  ·  &#9993;  16:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Chess Titans

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Right now, it looks this article mostly covers the gameplay and features of this game. I going to have to say this, but the article is just not able to be here.

OK, say you want to say about this game being notable because it's included on a notable computing machine, but when searching for info about this game on Google News, all I could find were articles about Windows Vista mentioning the game. I wasn't able to find anything in-depth about this game (development and production etc.), critical reviews, or any sources that would suggest some type of cult following of this game. Just because it was part of a notable computer does not make the game notable, or at least make it eligible to have a Wikipedia article on it.

Whoever made this article needs to take a good read at WP:NOTTEMPORARY WP:NOTINHERITED. EditorE (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete and comment what about the other Windows games? You could consider bundling some, such as Microsoft Mahjong and Spider Solitaire (Windows). I don't see WP:SIGCOV for these. Ansh666 20:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - WP:RS have been found. Ansh666 17:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per precedents: Articles for deletion/FreeCell (Windows), Articles for deletion/Hearts (Windows), Articles for deletion/Solitaire (Windows). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Those aren't precedents - they have established WP:N individually, not simply inherited from Windows. Ansh666 23:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Those are precedents - this article satisfies WP:N individually as well. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How? It has 0 sources. Ansh666 02:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have any sources right now, yes. That doesn't mean there aren't any. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The nom searched for WP:RS but couldn't find any. I couldn't either. Ansh666 03:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've now added a WP:RS, proving that at least one does in fact exist. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Still needs more in-depth info (like more history on this game), and some critical responses (which I think could be in some independent sources about Windows Vista mentioning the game), so I can withdraw this. EditorE (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment It's the nominator who needs to "take a good read at WP:NOTTEMPORARY". WP:NOTTEMPORARY cannot be a reason for deletion. It says that, once a topic has received enough coverage to be classed as notable, it doesn't need continued coverage to maintain that notability.  (So, for example, a book that was widely reviewed in the 1970s doens't become non-notable just because nobody's said much about it in the last 30 years.) Dricherby (talk) 09:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, actually it's a good reason, because the fact that the Macintosh is a very notable computer does not make the game notable, and we wouldn't we need ongoing coverage of a Macintosh by making articles of computer games bundled with the computer. It's still a non-notable topic. EditorE (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The concept that notability of Windows doesn't make bundled software notable is WP:NOTINHERITED. WP:NOTTEMPORARY has nothing to do with it. Dricherby (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Additional comment: WP:GAMEGUIDE is an invalid reason for deletion in this case, since there is other content present. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What in the Devil's name are you talking about? Most content (high score, Highest Scores, Winning Strategies and for getting a high score) look all pretty much GAMEGUIDE to me, and there's very little other content that is present here, not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. EditorE (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dogmaticeclectic that GameGuide is not a reason for deleting this article. Quoting from that "Video game guides... But avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts, unless these are notable in their own right ... Walk-throughs or detailed coverage of specific point values, achievements, time-limits, levels, types of enemies, character moves, character weight classes, and so on is also considered inappropriate.  A concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry."  I don't think it violates wp:GamePlay.  Secondly, it isn't really a video game in the usual sense - it is a computer implementation of a board game. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the video game thing still applies, since this meets the definition ("electronic game that involves human interaction with a user interface to generate visual feedback on a video device"). Ansh666 03:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The video in a computer chess game is superfluous. It is not an integral part of the game.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That would only apply if this were the article Chess. This article is not about the game being played, it is about the software. What that software does is not important as long as it passes WP:GNG (incidentally, what it does is chess! what a coincidence!) Ansh666 06:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But the software plays chess. It is not a video game.  The video is not essential. There is nothing about "specific point values, achievements, time-limits, levels, types of enemies, character moves, character weight classes, ". Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 13:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's from WP:GAMEGUIDE, eh? Those things do not define a "video game" - the definition at video game which I copied above does (and this passes), so it still falls under WP:NVG. The issue is really rather moot, in any case, since you weren't talking WP:NVG, but about WP:GAMEGUIDE, which it no longer passes. (I'd say, though, that traditional board or card games can also fall afoul of WP:GAMEGUIDE despite it saying "video game" in it.) Ansh666 15:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Unless it is a hoax then the information is valid, even if the article needs to be shaken and rewritten. The Big Hoof! (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If we had more info to make it long enough to pass the notability guidelines on Wikipedia, we could keep it, but that is not likely. EditorE (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to an article about the installed games on these windows builds. The sources are nowhere close to "significant coverage in secondary sources" to merit a standalone article, simply that the game exists in these Windows releases. Notably, the about.com and "for dummies" are simply instructions for playing the game (not secondary), the supersite review is one entire sentence describing the game, and the gamespot one just a bit more. No reviews or critical discussion. We can say the game exists, that it is a 3D representation of standard chess, and that's it. It's searchable, so deletion is not necessary. --M ASEM (t) 03:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.  D r e a m Focus  14:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Vista alone had over two hundred million people using it, all of them having this game. Surely millions of them played it.  I found only brief mentions in reliable sources like the New York Times so far, with Gamespot giving a bit more information.  Searching the Wikipedia reliable sources Google search for games results in a ridiculous large number of results to search through.  Are there any Chess magazines that would cover this?    D r e a m Focus  14:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The term "chess titans" is a name used commonly to refer to top chess players, ergo, any google search has to be selective to avoid the more common use of the term. I've looked through google news archive with the terms "chess titans" and "microsoft" and only get name drops as one of the pieces of software included in the OS release. Similarly, Google scholar on the same terms only name drops the program name as an OS feature. Notability is not equal to popularity or user-base size, and there's no indication that the size of the OS base (which is likely higher than 200 million) equals the number of players of Chess Titans. So this remains a notability issue. --M ASEM  (t) 23:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Apart from every GNG/non GNG quarrel: It is simply insane for whoever is not a Borg that a piece of software included in one of the most popular operating systems worldwide is considered "non notable". If our house rules make it so, then it is our notability rules that have to adapt. WP:GNG and WP:NOTINHERITED are guidelines (even if an important one), that should be applied with a grain of salt, or even ignored if this is better for the readers and the 'pedia. One has ask herself, before nominating: what advantage to the readers does deleting this article accomplish? Is the encyclopedia and our readers' experience better or worse without this article? In this case I feel the answer is obvious: the removal of this article is of no benefit. Please remember we're here for the readers. -- cyclopia  speak!  15:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really. Just because it comes with the world's largest-installed OS doesn't mean the software component is notable, and the logic that so many people are using it means we should be documenting every software component that comes with the OS, including every DLL and text file, just because. The reason to merge (not delete) this article is that all this is a pretty chess game that came with Windows. Good enough for a sentence in an article on programs included with Vista, but there's no need for an encyclopedia to dedicated a poorly sourced stand-alone article to the game. --M ASEM (t) 23:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Your reductio ad absurdum does not work, because people do not regularly directly and explicitly interact with DLLs and obscure OS text files, but they surely do with a game. This is something that millions of people experience directly. "A pretty chess game that came with Windows" makes it probably one of the most used chess softwares in the world. If our house rules fail to take this into account, there is something wrong with the rules, not with the subject. -- cyclopia  speak!  09:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If millions of people use it and no one bothers to write about it in a manner to write an encyclopedic article, then we don't have a standalone article on the topic. This is true across the board. Notice I'm not saying that we can't leave the redirect and a brief paragraph elsewhere because the existence of the game is certainly verifible. But all that can be said, using sources, is that it follows the rules of chess (documented elsewhere), it comes pre-installed on Windows, and it uses a 3D interface. There's no critical analysis of the game that is necessary to expand on that brief statement, ergo, it merits a line in a larger article but not a full stand-alone article. --M ASEM (t) 13:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge into a larger parent article. It may not deserve an article of its own but it might help to cover this in, say, an article on games released in Windows OS packages. I think there may be a degree of notability, but not a substantial one. (Merging is fun!)  LazyBastard Guy  19:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The article has gotten over 20 thousand hits in the past 90 days. No telling how many people have read it over the years.   D r e a m Focus  13:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How many of those hits have been from people visiting the article from the AfD? And besides, "it's popular" isn't a proper rationale. Ansh666 18:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * About 77. It averaged 228 per day over 90 days and peaked at about 302-305 the day of the AfD.  If you assume that all of the ones that looked at it that day above the average number were looking at it because of the AfD, that makes maybe 77. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Clicking through previous months in different years, it got about this much traffic regularly.  D r e a m Focus  01:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We have no idea why people look at our articles and whether they found what they were hoping for. For example, Phrases from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy has been viewed 111319 times in the last 90 days. What does that mean? By any reasonably definition of an encyclopedic article it's just candy-floss, at best. But once a minute 60x24x7 someone browses to that article, so it obviously serves some purpose from their point of view. Maybe Chess Titans has value for some readers too. - Pointillist (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.